Lawmakers won't regulate selves

Apparently, only Ariz. legislators are model citizens

That's one of the lessons we've learned from the bills that have been introduced and passed so far by the Arizona Legislature.

By their actions, state lawmakers tell us that the first responders we count on to protect us and to save our lives could be ripping us off through their unions, so the state must rein them in.

And that's not all. State office workers also can't be trusted. Apparently, they believe their bosses should need a legitimate reason to fire them so we must create legislation to eliminate their job protections.

Teachers are not reliable, either. This explains proposals by legislators to limit what teachers can say and how they can teach or whether they should be allowed to form bargaining units.

And then there are the women. Talk about trouble.

According to our lawmakers, we can't even trust Arizona women to deal with their own bodies or to tell the truth about why they might need contraceptive medical care.

But state legislators? No problem.

Lawmakers always do the right thing. There is no reason to think of our elected officials as anything but dependable, honest, reliable and true. Otherwise, they would by now have changed the way they regulate their own behavior based on two words:

When it all came out, lawmakers said they didn't know which of these gifts they were supposed to report or if it was bad to take them in the first place.

(They could have asked one of us regular people. We would have told them.)

In the end, Montgomery brought no charges against any of the lawmakers, saying state law was too vague and reporting requirements were too convoluted. It was unlikely he could prove that lawmakers "knowingly" broke the law, Montgomery said, even in the most egregious instances, like that of former Senate President and de facto Gov. Russell Pearce, who shoveled in $40,000 worth of trips and goodies.

Still, the public was outraged by what the lawmakers did. Or did we get over it?

Because the Legislature hasn't yet changed the rules governing their own behavior.

Montgomery has made some suggestions and remains open to consultation.

"There is beauty in simplicity," he told me. "One of my proposals was a simple either/or recommendation. Either ban everything, or set such a small limit that you have to report everything."

Makes sense. Which perhaps best explains why it has yet to be adopted.

"A corollary to that (suggestion) would be to require more frequent disclosure," Montgomery said. "You increase the frequency to at least quarterly and provide for the kind of transparent environment the public wants. Also, these disclosure recommendations of mine, I have suggested that they be applied to every level of government. So, they would apply to me, as well. I don't have a problem doing any of that."

Legislators do, however.

They prefer to regulate everyone but themselves. And who can blame them?

Earlier this month, Republic reporter Mary Jo Pitzl asked House Judiciary Chairman Eddie Farnsworth why he did not give a hearing to a bill that would have required some reforms.

Farnsworth said that he considered the proposal a solution in search of a problem, adding, "It's all a knee-jerk reaction to the Fiesta Bowl, to other things."

House Speaker Andy Tobin added that an outright gift ban would prohibit lawmakers from attending conferences and seminars where they learn things about "issues" (while sipping mimosas poolside.)

If you're still wondering why lawmakers haven't tightened up the rules, just look at it from their perspective.

Legislators have watched in recent weeks as several Fiesta Bowl officials made deals with prosecutors and packed their bags for the hoosegow. Meantime, under the existing requirements Arizona lawmakers follow when reporting gifts and expenditures, not a single one of them has gotten into trouble with the law.